OpenAI Says It’s Scanning Users’ ChatGPT Conversations and Reporting Content to the Police

Notice that your concerns are including technology and it’s impact on human wellbeing, and AI/chatGPT, which is your own acknowledgement that the problem we are defining as ‘mental illness’ and it’s treatment escapes the narrow boundaries that these concepts impose, because the problem goes beyond these narrow circumscriptions when you examine and are considering the actual, living terrain. When you look at the problem we call mental health and illness actually rather then theoretically, when we look at the actual human circumstances and human terrains being referenced by these narrow concepts, we can see that our concept of mental illness, which is supposed to be for the few rather then the many, is inadequate at capturing the actual dynamics we are confronted with when we look at the actual, and these dynamics effect all of us, and the ones we label as mentally ill tend to be examples which express themselves as more urgent problems that impair life and demand a resolution. But the actual dysfunction is common to those we regard as mentally ill, and those we regard as not mentally ill (or ‘normal’, which if we look at it critically, means socially conditioned rather then healthy, and therefore we should avoid the term ‘mentally healthy’ completely in this context).

There is a common pathology lying behind those presentations we define as mentally ill on the one hand and as not mentally ill on the other, and that pathology is at once social and psychological, and it is part of all of our psychosocial environment so it is not for the few but rather the medium in which we all live. This pathology can be defined as the ossification of forms of psychological and social life into rigid and imprisoning patterns of thinking and life activity, patterns which do not allow the free expression and release of the instincts which are frustrated and repressed by these ossified patterns of existence. Moreover, the ossified and entrenched social conditioning – the socially conditioned ideas, opinions, prejudices, conclusions, theories, judgements and so forth condition and distort perception of reality in its own image, so there is a pathological sense of reality based around conceptual fictions like the individual and individual responsibility and personal agency and nation and free will and so forth. This is an entirely illusory, socially conditioned sense of reality that almost everyone has, and it is that false sense of reality that is implicated in the inability of people to heal emotionally and psychologically, because one heals by understanding things clearly, something prevented by having an entirely fictional and fraudulent sense of reality, one implanted by the social milieu and naturalized by the common and unthinking acceptance of these fictions by the whole of society.

So when you see it this way you have to ask what the legitimacy is in circumscribing the issue through the narrow and distorting concepts of ‘mental illness’ and it’s treatment. It does not mean antipsychiatry should therefore abolish itself and become social critique – antipsychiatry is a form of social critique already, but antipsychiatry is the only place where exposure and effective critique of psychiatric and psychopharmacological malpractice can be found so insofar as social critique has a role, so does it’s sub-discourses of antipsychiatry. But it does mean I feel that the anti-psychiatrist is obliged to understand the problem in a much broader, wholistic way, seeing the actual problem in the context of the whole psychosocial and historical process that we are all conditioned by and trapped in, weather mad, sane, psychiatrist or antipsychiatrist. Only by seeing and understanding this prison are we not confined in it. To say that the antipsychiatrist cannot extend their grasp of the problem to include the whole of society because this project is broad and complex is the reaction of the intellect, not the understanding, because the intellectual approach can never approach and grasp the whole: it can only construct theoretical models of the whole which are not the whole and necessarily distort the whole and make understanding the whole through it impossible. The intellect cannot understand the whole of a person or the whole of society or any whole living system because the intellect depends on breaking down that whole into parts and considering them in isolation. The problem can only be understood and therefore resolved by eliminating the limiting conceptual parameters we impose by approaching it through limiting ideas of any kind, including the idea of mental health and illness and it’s treatment. Then you are investigating things with a clear and unprejudiced mind, whereas to approach it through the prejudices of psychiatry and antipsychiatry (e.g. through the acceptance of the concepts of mental health and illness) means we isolate parts of social reality according to these conceptual abstractions making that reality incomprehensible in relation to the whole, which is the problem that almost everyone writing articles for MIA have not even began to consciously overcome. But you are unconsciously going beyond these conceptual limitations when you go beyond the bounds of the terrain circumscribed as ‘mental illness’ and consider the broader social factors that penetrate and influence this terrain including technology, racism, class etc – which again should not be the lens you see reality through, but rather are some of the dynamics you notice when you look at and investigate the actual psycho-social terrain free of any such lens, i.e. free of any intellectual approach, hence an ‘open minded’ or free, unburdened, unprejudiced enquiry.

Report comment

If you approach it logically, most likely someone somewhere changed the algorithm, or at least what constitutes a “goal” to use their terminology, in order to make it seem like it can’t be trusted. Now, always ask the one question that matters, who benefits?

Report comment